memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:USS Bonestell
USS Bonestell In my walk through the Federation vessels, I came across this one now. We just had a discussion on Talk:USS Bellerophon (NCC-62048), but this one seems even worse - while the article seems to claim that all the information is derived from DS9:Emissary, DITL, which is generally pretty reliable, states that registry number, class and even the name itself are derived from the ST Encyclopedia. I know this won't please some people, but if we really want to be as "accurate" and "reliable" as we claim on our main page, we need to do something about this. According to current policy, it would be OK to move registry number and class to a background section and state that the name is actually just given in the Encyclopedia. However, there doesn't seem to be any valid information left for non-background text, in this case. Any ideas? -- Cid Highwind 17:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC) :Again, I'm pretty sure that the model (seen through the window of Sisko's destroyed quarters) was in fact labeled with the name and registry as described in he Encyclopedia. we just need to find a way to document this. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Any progress? Since we already have an article about Starships at Wolf 359, we could merge this page there, and rephrase that article to make clear what parts are derived from the Encyclopedia. That way, we would keep the information available without claiming something we don't really know for sure at the moment. -- Cid Highwind 15:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC) :: If we can't make any progress, we can move the page to Unnamed Oberth class starships to retain the page's information. --Alan del Beccio 01:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC) :::I agree with a merge to Unnamed Oberth class starships, but one has to wonder where the Encyclopedia got this name; I would assume they had access to the model and used the info from that. Either that, or they just made it up entirely. Question is, which one? Until we find out, this should probably be moved to Unnamed Oberths, at least until the info can be verified as having come from the model. --From Andoria with Love 20:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC) ::::But doesn't the policy of Memory Alpha demand to create a new page and use the valid background source for the name when one is available and does not conflict with established canon anyway applicable here instead of referring to a ship as an "unnamed"? --Pseudohuman 01:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC) :: I think in light of the internal use ship list (you weren't aware of at the time of the last post) confirming the Encyclopedia entry, I'd say yes, now it should be. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 19:58, November 6, 2017 (UTC) :::::I added the split tag to the page so this can move ahead. I support the recreation of the Bonestell page based on a production source naming the model seen on-screen. Kennelly (talk) 14:43, February 14, 2019 (UTC)